Colonial Justice: Justice, Morality, and Crime in the Niagara District, 1791-1849

Christopher English is a professor of history at Memorial University of
Newfoundland and the author of A Cautious Beginning: The Emergence of
Newfoundland’s Supreme Court of Judicature in 1791–92.

A revisionist study that examines from the ground up the judicial system
of a specific pre-Confederation district is welcome both for itself and
as a contribution to the scholarly literature on crime and how it was
seen and responded to by officials at various levels.

The first half century of the Niagara district’s judicial practice
acknowledged English roots adapted to local needs. At its heart were the
magistrates, local men of standing, who presided over courts of quarter
session. Even after the appearance of touring judges of assize, whose
wider jurisdiction embraced jail delivery and major crimes, magistrates
heard the majority of cases and did much to systematize the definition
of crime and what local inhabitants accepted as appropriate sentencing.

Murray stresses that local grand juries played a key role judicially
and administratively. Their presentments identified local problems such
as the need for poor relief. Magistrates and grand juries in quarter
sessions were the catalyst that activated the local judicial
infrastructure of petit juries, sheriffs, and constables. Magistrates
enjoyed considerable independence, but if they referred questions to
higher levels in York/Toronto, they ran the risk that the attorney
general or the chief justice might return a narrowly legalistic or
draconian response that was at odds with local perceptions. One example
was extradition, especially of slaves who had escaped their American
masters and sought to build a new and (as it turned out, far from
secure) life in Niagara.

While providing a nicely nuanced study illustrating the adaptability,
even accountability, of law to local needs, the author also challenges
general contentions in recent studies of Upper Canadian law that
categorize its administration as class- specific and cynically corrupt.
Murray admits that the law was often unequally applied: the appointment
of magistrates was partisan; those least able to argue in their own
defence—women, the poor, fugitive slaves, the physically and mentally
disadvantaged—were overlooked, marginalized, and silenced. But he
contends that much of what we now find objectionable reflected values
and assumptions of the age that were shared by other common-law
jurisdictions.